Pages

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is neversettled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Monday, 13 January 2014

BBC's Blinkered Bias Based on Brainwashing.

This blog has written before about the BBC's Roger Harrabin.

It was recently revealed that senior BBC journalist Roger Harrabin accepted £15,000 in grants from the University of East Anglia, which was at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, and then reported on the story without declaring this interest to viewers. (link)

This blog has also reported the beano that bonded the BBC's blinkered Bias:

The BBC’s editorial policy on ­climate change, however, was spelled out in a report by the BBC Trust — whose job is to oversee the workings of the BBC in the interests of the public — in 2007. This disclosed that the BBC had held ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’. The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus. (link Jan 2011)

The BBC claim that seminar was given by “the best scientific experts”. But Richard North remembers hearing only “activists”, and even one of the two organizers — the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT) describe the guests as policy experts. The IBT, by the way, describe themselves as ‘lobbying Government, regulators and broadcasters’”. The other organizer was CMEP, Roger Harribin’s unit with an activist friend which is funded by big government (DEFRA ) and what do you know, the WWF.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

Well, it wasn't that covered up if we knew about it. Evidence that a government had used a £67000 grant to warp science appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster. (Was the extra $190M in ABC funding that the Gillard Government decided on - smack bang in the middle of the search warrant reports in other media - equally subversive? [link])

According to Montford and Newbery, the key event was a BBC seminar at Television Centre entitled Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting, which was made up of ’30 key BBC staff’ and ‘30 invited guests’.

It was actually Montford and Newbery's continuing investigation and FOI requests that led to today's headlines. (link)

In October 2007, while looking for something interesting to read, I came across a blog posting about a leaked BBC email. While it was interesting, it appeared relatively insignificant. There was no hint that this was to be the beginning of an investigation that would span more than four years and to lead to one of the greatest scandals in the history of the BBC.

Tony Newbery, on his blog "Harmless Sky,"

In the Mail on Sunday today, David Rose has reported on some startling developments in the long, long quest for information about a BBC’s 2006 seminar on climate change. He has been very careful, as ever, to get his facts right, but writing for a popular Sunday paper necessarily means that much detail has had to be sacrificed in favour of a broad brush and the big picture. This is not a criticism in any way, it is just that a lot more could be said if space and the genre permitted.

What is clear in the Mail on Sunday report is that funding for the 2006 BBC climate change seminar came from a government department. Also that the funds were channelled through environmental lobbyists who were organising the seminar. And it is possible that the government department that provided the funds had some input about the topics selected for the seminars.

These alarmists accuse BigOil of funding the realist side of the debate (Where's MY BigOil funding?) however the billions that governments have poured into the alarmist side would probably be enough to bankrupt a countering BigOil.